Distribution and relative abundance of caribou in the Hudson Plains

The Tenth North American Caribou Workshop,
Girdwood, Alaska, USA,
4-6 May, 2004.
Distribution and relative abundance of caribou i n the Hudson Plains Ecozone
of Ontario
Audrey J. Magoun , Kenneth F. Abraham , John E. Thompson , Justina C. Ray , Michel E.
Gauthier , Glen S. Brown , Gillian Woolmer , Christopher J. Chenier , & F. Neil Dawson
1
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2
6
3
4
4
5
7
Wildlife Research and Management (WRAM), 3680 Non Road, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709, USA ([email protected]).
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 300 Water Street, Peterborough, Ontario K9J 8M5, Canada.
Ontario Parks, Ontario Government Complex, Hwy 101 East, PO Bag 3020, South Porcupine, Ontario P 0 N 1H0,
Canada.
Wildlife Conservation Society Canada, 720 Spadina Avenue, Suite 600, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2T9, Canada.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2 Third Avenue, PO Box 730, Cochrane, Ontario P0L 1C0, Canada.
Tembec Inc., Hwy 101 West, P.O. Box 1100, Timmins, Ontario P 4 N 7H9, Canada.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, RR#1, 25 Side Road, Thunder Bay, Ontario P7C 4T9, Canada.
th
Abstract: To determine past distribution and relative abundance of caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in the Hudson
Plains Ecozone (HPE) of Ontario, we reviewed past HPE-wide winter systematic aerial surveys, partial winter systematic
surveys, summer photographic surveys, incidental observations of caribou, and other sources of information from the
period 1950—2003. We conducted new HPE-wide aerial surveys in February 2003 and 2004 to evaluate current distribution patterns. From this information, we defined 9 core wintering areas in the HPE and differentiated between 3 catego¬
ries of relative abundance. Wintering areas for the January—March period have changed relatively little over the past 45
years. Summer distribution of caribou along the Hudson Bay coast apparently shifted or expanded from the area west of
the Severn River to the central and eastern portions of the coast since the 1980s, and caribou observations have become
much more common in the area east of the Winisk River since 1998. Because major resource development activities in
the HPE are proposed and some are imminent, we recommend additional caribou surveys to document current caribou
population identity, size, and distribution, and research projects to better define caribou wintering areas, calving areas,
and movement patterns in the HPE.
Key words: aerial surveys, historical review, Hudson Bay, James Bay, Omushkego Cree, photographic surveys, Rangifer
tarandus caribou, systematic surveys, summer aggregations, wintering areas.
Rangifer,
Special Issue No. 16: 105-121
Introduction
In Ontario, the term Hudson Plains Ecozone (HPE)
refers to an ecological region lying south of Hudson
Bay and west and south of James Bay (50-59°N,
76-96°W; Fig. 1) (Ecological Stratification Working
Group, 1996). Historically, the term Hudson Bay
Lowland has been used to refer to a physiograhic
region of Ontario that corresponds to the area covered by the H P E . The H P E is subdivided into 3
ecoregions: Coastal Hudson Bay Lowland, Hudson
Bay Lowland, and James Bay Lowland. Because the
Rangifer,
Special Issue No. 16, 2005
term Hudson Bay Lowland is used for the name of an
ecoregion in the HPE as well as for the entire physiographic region, we will refer to our study area as the
HPE to avoid confusion, even though many of the
references cited in this paper use the term Hudson
Bay Lowland when referring to the entire region.
As early as the 1700s caribou were documented
inhabiting the Hudson Bay coast in Ontario east
as far as Cape Henrietta Maria (Banfield, 1961 citing Jeremie, 1720 and Hearne, 1795). At that time,
105
caribou observed along the coast were thought to
migrate seasonally, spending the winter in wooded
interior regions of what is now Manitoba and migrating southeastward in summer along the narrow tundra belt bordering the Hudson Bay coast in Manitoba
and Ontario. Lytwyn (2002: 84) stated that "caribou
did not migrate as far south as the Albany River during the fur-trade period. The most southerly destination was Akimiski Island, where large numbers spent
the summer on the tundra of the island's northern
shore." Caribou no longer occur on Akimiski Island.
A n elder Attawapiskat resident who has hunted and
trapped on Akimiski Island all his adult life reported
seeing caribou on the island for the last time in the
1940s (M. Kataquapit, pers. comm.). Lytwyn (2002:
229), quoting from a 1948 unpublished report by
the Department of Northern Affairs and National
Resources, wrote "The brush caribou (locally called
'deer') ('hatik'), once fairly plentiful along the west
coast of James Bay, has all but disappeared from the
country." Other historical references to caribou in the
eastern HPE south of the Ekwan River indicate that
caribou occurred in small, widely scattered groups
(Brokx, 1965 citing the following: Bell, 1886; Dowling, 1904; de Vos & Peterson, 1951). Banfield (1961,
citing Tyrrell, 1913) and Lytwyn (2002) reported that
heavy kills of caribou to provision the Hudson Bay
Company fur-trading posts rapidly reduced the size
of the migratory caribou population by the late 1700s
and may have changed the population's migratory
patterns. Lytwyn (2002) reviewed Hudson Bay Com¬
pany meat trade records and reported that caribou
numbers began to increase again by the late 1800s.
Cringan (1956) contributed more recent informa¬
tion on distribution and abundance of caribou in
Ontario based on data collected from trappers and
hunters. However, systematic surveys of caribou in
the HPE were not begun until 1957, when the Ontar¬
io Department of Lands and Forests [reorganized into
the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources in 1973
and hereafter referred to as O M N R regardless of the
year] began winter aerial surveys of caribou over large
areas of Ontario. Simkin (1965) and Brokx (1965)
summarized the results of systematic winter surveys
through 1964. Simkin (1965) also reported summer
observations of caribou in the northern portion of the
HPE collected while doing ground surveys of vegeta¬
tion in July and August 1960-1962, and an aerial
survey in August 1963. From 1967 through 1979,
O M N R personnel periodically conducted additional
winter aerial surveys in limited areas of the HPE,
and in 1982-1984 they carried out a broad-scale
systematic winter survey. In an unpublished report,
Thompson (1986) summarized the results of the
O M N R winter caribou surveys in the H P E from
106
1959-1984 and Thompson & Abraham (1994) sum¬
marized caribou observations from the northwestern
HPE for the period 1958-1990. Biologists and others
working in coastal areas continued to record inci¬
dental observations of caribou along Hudson Bay
and in the southeastern portion of the Hudson Bay
Lowlands along James Bay. These observations are
archived by O M N R .
Using radiotelemetry, Abraham & Thompson
(1998) followed the movements of caribou in north¬
western Ontario (Pen Islands caribou herd) from
1987 through 1990 and determined that the collared
caribou made seasonal movements from wintering
areas in the forested interior of northeastern Mani¬
toba and northwestern Ontario to the Hudson Bay
coast in spring, and then back again in the fall and
early winter. The only other telemetry study of cari¬
bou in the HPE was in the southeastern portion near
the Quebec border (Brown et al., 2003).
Historically, the HPE in Ontario was occupied
by the Hudson Bay Lowland Cree (Muskekowuck
Athinuwick) living in dispersed bands (Lytwyn,
2002). Today, the human population (approx. 10 000)
is largely concentrated in 7 coastal villages—Fort
Severn, Peawanuck, Attawapiskat, Kashechwan, Fort
Albany, Moosonee, and Moose Factory (Fig. 1).
Hunting, trapping, fishing, and tourism dominate
the local economies (Berkes et al., 1994; Berkes et
al,, 1995; Abraham & Keddy, in press). While pat¬
terns of harvesting activities have changed mark¬
edly, the geographic extent of land use continues
to reach far beyond the settlements (Berkes et al.,
1995). The HPE remains essentially roadless, with
only winter ice roads connecting some of the more
isolated communities. One rail line penetrates the
HPE in Ontario, and surface access to interior
regions is primarily by boat along major rivers and
streams in summer and by snowmachine in winter.
However, in recent years there has been increasing
use of all-terrain vehicles along coastal areas in sum¬
mer. Commercial forestry does not currently occur
in the HPE and mining is in its infancy. However,
there are a number of pending or planned resource
development projects that will affect the area and
potentially caribou populations in the region, includ¬
ing forestry along the southern edge (OMNR, 2001)
and development of diamond resources (AMEC,
2004), primarily in the James Bay Lowland. Winter
roads have been proposed to develop the mining
claims near Attawapiskat (AMEC, 2004). In view of
these developments and others that may follow, it is
important to develop baseline information on caribou
populations in the Ontario HPE and monitor the
effects of resource development on caribou numbers,
distribution, and movements. Loss of historical range
Rangifer,
Special Issue No. 16, 2005
Fig. 1 The Hudson Plains Ecozone (HPE) of Ontario and its 3 ecoregions.
of caribou in the southern half of the province since
1880 (Racey & Armstrong, 2000; Schaefer, 2003)
highlights the vulnerability of caribou to changes in
human land use patterns and emphasizes the need
for knowledge about the status of northern caribou
populations before there are appreciable changes in
land use in this region of Ontario.
For this paper, we have 3 objectives:
1 Summarize unpublished information on system¬
atic winter surveys and incidental observations of
caribou,
2 Discuss patterns of caribou distribution and rela¬
tive abundance over time, and
3 Recommend future directions for documenting
caribou distribution and relative abundance in
the Hudson Bay Lowlands in light of impending
changes in human land use.
Study area
The study area (Fig. 1) comprises the portion of the
HPE that lies within Ontario. Detailed descriptions
of each ecoregion in the HPE are provided in A
Rangifer, Special
Issue No. 16, 2005
National Ecological Framework for Canada (Ecological
Stratification Working Group, 1996).
The climate of the HPE is characterized by short,
cool summers and cold winters. Ecoregional climates
vary from high subarctic along the Hudson Bay
coast (cooler and drier) to midboreal around southern
James Bay (wetter and warmer). From Fort Severn
to Cape Henrietta Maria, 50% of offshore waters
can remain ice-covered into late July in some areas
(Rouse, 1991). Rowe (1972) described the area as a
poorly drained region of unconsolidated glacial and
postglacial deposits underlain by Palaeozoic lime¬
stone over Precambrian rock, abounding in bogs and
shallow lakes. Abraham & Keddy (in press) provide
a detailed description of the HPE, with emphasis on
the wetland features of the region.
The forested areas of the Coastal Hudson Bay Low¬
land are characterized by very open stands of stunted
black spruce (Picea mariana) and tamarack, with
secondary quantities of white spruce (Picea glauca).
In the Hudson Bay Lowland, stands are denser and
trees are larger. In both ecoregions, the shrub layer
consists of dwarf birch (Betula nana), willow (Salix
107
spp.), and ericaceous shrubs, and the ground cover
is dominated by sedges (Carex spp.) and cottongrass
(Eriophorum spp.) or moss and lichen (Cladonia spp.,
Alectoria spp., Cetraria spp., and others). Dry sites in
the Hudson Bay Lowland ecoregion support open
stands of white spruce with an ericaceous shrub layer
and a ground cover of lichen. Poorly drained sites in
both ecoregions are characterized by sedge and cottongrass tussocks or sphagnum moss. The James Bay
Lowland ecoregion is a transition zone between the
•
coniferous and mixed forests of the clay belt to the
south and the tundra to the north. Most of the area is
poorly drained and dominated by sedge, mosses, and
lichen with or without stunted black spruce and tam¬
arack. In the southern portion of the ecoregion and
along the parallel rivers draining east into James Bay,
forests are composed of balsam fir (Abies balsamea),
white and black spruce, trembling aspen (Populus
tremuloides), and paper birch (Betula papyrifera) (Eco¬
logical Stratification Working Group, 1996).
•
Riley (1982) catalogued the wetland types and
Riley (2003) provided details of the flora of the
HPE. Ahti & Hepburn (1967) provided detailed
descriptions of the lichens and noted that lichens
used by caribou were most abundant in the Hudson
Bay Lowland. Brokx (1965) categorized 25 ecologi¬
cal zones based on physiographic and vegetational
characteristics important to caribou in the region
north of 52°N.
Methods
Data sources
We used the following data sources to identify past
and present distribution patterns and relative abun¬
dance of caribou in the HPE of Ontario:
1 HPE-wide systematic surveys—Since 1959 there
have been a number of systematic winter surveys
of caribou carried out in the HPE using aircraft to
fly transects and record the locations of caribou,
their tracks, and their feeding craters (caribou
sign). These surveys were designed to cover a large
proportion of the HPE over a relatively short time
period and occurred in 3 periods separated by
about 20 years. We used unpublished reports and
data from O M N R to summarize the results of the
earlier surveys and carried out a new survey in
2003-2004. We compared the results from these
3 survey periods:
• The first survey period was 1959-1964 (hereaf¬
ter referred to as the 1960s survey). The results
of the surveys are summarized in Simkin (1965)
and Brokx (1965). Surveys were carried out in
January and February and transects were either
6 km or 13 km apart, depending on the den108
sity of forest cover within the survey unit; more
intensive coverage occurred where tree cover was
dense. Caribou tracks were followed off tran¬
sect until the caribou were located. Using the
original survey data (see Table 1 for references to
the original survey reports), Simkin (1965) and
Brokx (1965) estimated caribou density using
the number of caribou counted within the tran¬
sect area.
From 1982 through 1984, O M N R conducted
systematic surveys (hereafter referred to as the
1980s survey) in the HPE from January through
March using 171 transect lines spaced 5 km
apart (Thompson, 1986). We located the origi¬
nal survey maps showing the locations of caribou
sign. Caribou tracks were followed off transect
until the caribou were located. Thompson (1986)
estimated caribou densities using caribou num¬
bers counted within the transect area.
In February 2003 and 2004, we conducted
coarse-scale surveys (hereafter referred to as the
2000s survey) for caribou in the HPE as part
of a more comprehensive survey of carnivores
and ungulates in northern Ontario. We divided
the study area into 1000-km hexagons and
established flight lines through the centers of
the hexagons. Distance between flight lines was
usually 34-60 km, with most flight lines in the
eastern portion of the HPE separated by 34 km.
The survey aircraft (2 Piper PA-18 Super Cubs)
were not required to stay on a set GPS track but
could deviate up to 2 km from the flight route
to check open areas for carnivore and ungulate
tracks as long as the aircraft passed through the
centers of the hexagons. We recorded caribou
sign and counted caribou when they were vis¬
ible, but we did not follow fresh tracks to count
caribou and did not estimate caribou density.
2
2 Partial systematic surveys—Between 1967 and
2003, O M N R carried out additional surveys in
portions of the HPE, including caribou surveys
and moose surveys that included observations of
caribou. These surveys used the same transect
method that was used in the 1960s and 1980s sur¬
veys, although transect width differed somewhat
between surveys. Unpublished reports on these
surveys were reviewed for information on caribou
distribution and abundance.
3 Telemetry studies—Two telemetry studies of cari¬
bou in the HPE provided locations of caribou in
the northwestern (Thompson & Abraham, 1994)
and southeastern (Brown et al., 2003) portions of
the HPE. Only winter locations were available for
the northwestern area, but winter and summer
locations were available for the southeastern area.
Rangifer,
Special Issue No. 16, 2005
Table 1.
Results of caribou surveys in the Hudson Plains Ecozone (HPE) from 1959 to 1964, referred to as the HPEwide 1960s survey. Caribou counted on transects are expressed as caribou per 100 km of transect area.
2
Fig. 4 survey area
Survey report
Caribou off
transects
Number of
groups on
transects
Total transect length
(km)
Transect
area
(km )
Caribou
per 100
km
2
b
2
1
Simkin (1959)
7
Not reported Not reported
1261
3061
0.2
Simkin (I960)
Not reported
9
1888
2611
3.8
3
4
Simkin (1964)
Simkin (1962a)
Simkin (1961)
Simkin (1962b)
Simkin (1965)
Simkin (1962b)
Brokx (1965)
Goddard (1961)
Simkin (1965)
Goddard (1961)
Simkin (1965)
Goddard (1961)
Brokx (1965)
Gagnon (1962)
Simkin (1965)
McLellan (1962)
Simkin (1965)
99
294
256
35
4624
5102
5.8
61
104
24
2938
3999
1.5
140
11
16
2493
3064
4.5
6a
6a+6b
7a
7b
7a+7b+7c
8
9
b
Caribou
on transects
2
5
a
a
66
Not reported Not reported
957
1054
6.2
66
Not reported Not reported
2250
2186
3.0
72
Not reported Not reported
1675
1585
4.5
23
Not reported Not reported
2854
2797
0.8
86
Not reported Not reported
5907
5737
1.5
36
0
3
3430
3367
1.1
45
Not reported
4
5645
6775
0.7
Reference to the original survey report, except for Simkin (1965) and Brokx (1965), which are summaries of the surveys
from 1959—1964 (1960s HPE-wide systematic survey). In some cases, data for this table were only available from these
summaries. Simkin (1965) separated survey area 6 into 2 parts and calculated density separately for area 6a after finding
no caribou in area 6b; Brokx (1965) calculated density for the entire area. Simkin (1965) separated survey area 7 into 3
areas and calculated density separately for 7a and 7b; Brokx (1965) reduced the size of the original survey area (Goddard,
1961) to include only those areas within the HPE and calculated density for the entire area within the HPE.
Density of caribou within the transect area.
4 Incidental summer observations—We used observations of caribou in the HPE, archived by O M N R ,
to digitize summer locations of caribou from the
1950s to 2003. These sightings were reported by
individuals involved in radiotracking caribou,
conducting wildlife surveys for other species, and
doing vegetation studies as well as by the public.
5 Summer photographic surveys—Photographic sur¬
veys of caribou in coastal tundra habitat during
summer (Apr-Sep) began in 1986 and ended after
1997. The search area was between Fort Severn
and the Nelson River in Manitoba, covering the
known summer range of the Pen Island caribou
herd (Thompson & Abraham, 1994; Abraham &
Thompson, 1998). A l l aggregations encountered
along flight lines parallel to the coast in open tun¬
dra habitat were photographed. No sizable caribou
groups were noted east of Fort Severn during this
period, so the area was not included in the summer
photographic surveys, although incidental observa¬
tions of caribou were recorded.
Rangifer, Special Issue No.
16, 2005
Analyses
We examined trends in caribou distribution separately for winter (Jan-Mar) and summer (Apr-Sep),
because winter data were derived from systematic
surveys over broad areas of the HPE, while those
from summer were collected nonsystematically, pri¬
marily along the coast of Hudson Bay. Flights in
March only occurred during the 1980s survey and
only 15% of caribou locations were found during the
March flights. We believe the March data can be
combined with January and February data, because
80% of the March locations were clustered with the
January and February locations.
We used ArcView GIS software to digitize loca¬
tions of caribou sign from incidental observations in
summer and from the 1980s and 2000s systematic
winter surveys. Because we could not locate original
survey maps from the 1960s survey north of 52°N,
we were unable to digitize locations of caribou sign
from that survey. Instead, we used locations of cari¬
bou sign provided by Brokx (1965: Fig. 36) to deter¬
mine where caribou were distributed north of 52°N
109
Fig. 2. Coverage of the Hudson Plains Ecozone (HPE) of Ontario by 3 systematic aerial surveys for caribou from 1959
to 2003
(southern boundary of Brokx's study area) during the
1960s survey. South of 52°N we digitized locations
provided by O M N R .
Comparing systematic surveys conducted over
a 45-year timespan presented challenges that we
acknowledge here. Survey conditions, methodolo¬
gies, and boundaries of survey areas changed over
time, and the rigor of data analysis, interpretation,
and reporting varied among the surveys. In the ear¬
lier surveys, the number of caribou counted along
transects (within a given distance from the transect
center) were used to calculate a density for caribou
within the area covered by the transects. For some
of the later surveys, standard errors and confidence
limits were provided for the density estimates, but
the usefulness of these figures for comparing caribou
densities between areas is questionable at best. Cari¬
bou were distributed in a clumped pattern during
the winter surveys, sample sizes of caribou groups
were usually small, and the boundaries of wintering
areas and survey areas changed from year to year.
With no consistency in survey areas and no mea110
sure of sampling error, the density estimates cannot
be used to compare the number of caribou between
survey areas or survey periods. Moreover, because
there is no information on caribou subpopulations in
the HPE or the extent of their winter ranges, there
is no way to know what proportion of the popula¬
tion or subpopulations were included in the surveys.
However, we believe that information gathered on
caribou numbers during the surveys should not be
disregarded despite sampling problems. The density
estimates reflect not only the number of caribou seen
on transects but also the area covered by transects.
As such, the density estimates are the only available
and comparable measure of relative abundance of
caribou in the HPE for the time period we examined.
We used the density estimates only as a means of
delineating broad areas of relative abundance. The
estimates should not be used to compare population
size between areas or evaluate changes in population
size in the HPE over time.
We plotted summer distribution in coastal areas
along Hudson Bay using incidental observations
Rangifer,
Special Issue No. 16, 2005
Fig. 3. Areas where caribou and their tracks were located during 3 systematic aerial surveys in the Hudson Plains
Ecozone (HPE) of Ontario from 1959—2003. Point locations for the 1960s caribou distribution can be found in
Brokx (1965). The arrows point to areas where radiocollared caribou in 2 study areas were concentrated in winter
(Jan—Mar) during 1988—1990 (Thompson & Abraham, 1994) and 1998—2001 (Brown et al., 2003).
and the results of photographic surveys, however,
summer locations in areas away from the coast were
generally not available. We plotted summer locations
by time period and the approximate number of ani¬
mals per group.
Results and discussion
Comparing the systematic survey coverages
The areas covered in the HPE-wide systematic
surveys are shown in Fig. 2. In all 3 surveys, some
portions of the HPE were not surveyed or some data
were missing from the original surveys. Also, some
portions of the HPE were surveyed more than once
during the 1960s survey (Brokx, 1965: Fig. 33). The
portion of the HPE lying south of 54°N and west of
85°20'W was not covered in the 1980s systematic
survey nor was the small portion of the HPE south
of 50°30'N. In the 2000s survey, distances between
transects were greater than in previous surveys and
Rangifer, Special Issue No.
16, 2005
coverage was particularly light between Shamattawa
Lake and the Fawn River.
Winter distribution
During the 1960s survey, signs of caribou were
detected over large areas of the HPE, primarily
within the Hudson Bay Lowland and the western
third of the James Bay Lowland above 52°N (Fig. 3).
Below 52°N, caribou were recorded west and north
of Moosonee and near Kesagami Lake. Caribou were
not surveyed in the western portion of the HPE near
The Albany Forks. Unlike subsequent surveys, the
1960s survey detected caribou tracks in the Coastal
Hudson Bay Lowland, mainly east of Fort Severn
(Brokx, 1965: Fig. 36). Most caribou from the 1960s
survey north of 52°N were concentrated in 5 areas:
between Sturgeon Lake and Hosea Lake near the
Manitoba border, around Shagamu Lake north of the
Winisk River, around Shamattawa Lake, in the area
111
Fig. 4. Location of caribou surveys in the Hudson Plains Ecozone (HPE) of Ontario from 1959 to 1964, referred to as
the HPE-wide 1960s survey (details in Table 1). Caribou counted on transects are expressed as caribou per 100
km of transect area (see Table 1 for references to the original survey reports).
2
of Sutton Lake, and between the Winisk and Ekwan
Rivers northeast of Webequie.
The 1980s survey (Thompson, 1986) also located
concentrations of caribou in the Sturgeon Lake area
(532 caribou in 67 aggregates observed), however,
most caribou in the 1980s were located southeast of
where Brokx (1965: Fig. 36) reported concentrations
of animals in the 1960s (Fig. 3). Thompson & Abra¬
ham (1994) verified that radiocollared caribou from
the Pen Islands Herd also used this area during win¬
ters 1988—1990 (Fig. 3). During the 1980s survey,
caribou were also scattered from the Severn River
east to about 83°30'W and south of 54°N as far as
the Attawapiskat River. Thompson (1986) reported
a concentration of caribou between the Ekwan and
Attawapiskat Rivers (108 caribou in 10 aggregates
observed) and another concentration in the Shamattawa Lake area (46 caribou in 5 aggregates), which
was a smaller number of caribou than he expected
based on earlier survey results. Few caribou were
located between the Attawapiskat River and 52°N.
112
Thompson (1986) referred to a "second major concen¬
tration area" [relative to the one near Sturgeon Lake]
near The Albany Forks, a relatively small area where
78 caribou in 12 aggregates were observed. Unfor¬
tunately, Brokx's (1965) study area did not include
The Albany Forks, so we cannot compare the results
of the 1980s survey with the 1960s survey for this
area. However, O M N R personnel reported a "large"
caribou concentration northwest of The Albany Forks
during winter 1962 (Gagnon, 1962). In the 1980s,
small groups of caribou and caribou tracks were scat¬
tered east of The Albany Forks from about 83°W to
Moosonee, and additional animals were located near
Kesagami Lake, as they had been in the 1960s.
Although the 2000s survey was coarse-scale rela¬
tive to earlier surveys, especially in the northwestern
portion of the HPE, we found similar patterns in
caribou distribution with some minor differences.
The center of concentration for caribou in the Stur¬
geon Lake area was south of where it had been in the
1960s and 1980s (Fig. 3). The center of concentration
Rangifer,
Special Issue No. 16, 2005
Fig. 5. Location of caribou surveys in the Hudson Plains Ecozone (HPE) of Ontario in 1978 (area A2) (details in
Hamilton, 1978) and from 1982 to 1984, referred to as the HPE-wide 1980s survey (details in Thompson,
1986). Caribou counted on transects are expressed as caribou per 100 km of transect area.
2
for caribou between the Fawn and Winisk Rivers
was southwest of where it had been in the 1960s
survey (see Brokx, 1965: Fig. 36). Finally, despite
greater distance between survey transects, more cari¬
bou observations were recorded in the 2000s survey
between 52°N and the Attawapiskatt River than
were recorded in that area during the 1980s survey.
Relative abundance of caribou in wintering areas
Using the distribution maps of caribou locations
from the 3 HPE-wide systematic surveys (Fig. 3
and Brokx, 1965: Fig. 36) and the caribou density
estimates provided in O M N R reports (Figs. 4 & 5),
we designated 3 areas of relative abundance for cari¬
bou in the HPE: high, moderate, and low (Fig. 6).
Areas of high relative abundance had caribou pres¬
ent during the 3 systematic surveys and at least 4
caribou counted per 100 km of transect area. Areas
of moderate relative abundance had caribou during
the 3 systematic surveys, but less than 2 caribou
counted per 100 km of transect area. Areas of low
2
2
Rangifer,
Special Issue No. 16, 2005
abundance were nearly devoid of caribou during the
winter surveys. As we discuss below, it was not pos¬
sible to define relative abundance more specifically
or determine if relative abundance changed over time
based on the available data. However, we believe
the clumping of the highest density estimates in
the northwestern portion of the HPE reflects actual
regional differences in the abundance of caribou in
the HPE during winter for the period of study.
In the 1960s, the highest reported caribou densi¬
ties were in the Hudson Bay Lowland, particularly
in the west around Sturgeon Lake and in the central
portion of the ecoregion surrounding Shagamu,
Shamattawa, and Sutton Lakes (Fig. 4: areas 6a and
3, respectively). The only area within the James Bay
Lowland with comparable reported densities in the
1960s was north of Webequie between the headwater
tributaries of the Winisk River (Fig. 4: area 7a). The
lowest estimated caribou densities from the 1960s
survey were from the Coastal Hudson Bay Lowland
(Fig. 4: area 1) and the James Bay Lowland (Fig. 4:
113
Fig. 6. Relative abundance of caribou in winter (Jan—Mar) in the Hudson Plains Ecozone (HPE) of Ontario based on the
results of systematic aerial surveys from 1959 to 2003.
areas 7b, 8, & 9). In Figure 4, areas 2 and 4 had
very few caribou in the areas that did not overlap
with area 3. In the 1980s survey, reported caribou
densities were highest west of the Shamattawa River
(Fig. 5: area A) and in a very small area near The
Albany Forks (Fig. 5: area G). As in the 1960s survey,
caribou density estimates from the 1980s survey were
generally low in the James Bay Lowland, except for
The Albany Forks.
Changes in caribou numbers and/or shifts in con¬
centration areas may have occurred in portions of
the H P E between survey periods, but evaluating
such changes was not possible, particularly because
survey boundaries usually changed between surveys.
However, between the 1960s and the 1980s surveys,
2 partial surveys of the Hudson Bay Lowland were
conducted in the same central portion of the Hudson
Bay Lowland ("1971 partial survey area" in Fig. 2).
Simkin (1967) surveyed this area in 1967 and found
about 2 caribou per 100 km of transect area (tran¬
sects 6 km apart and 914 m in width). The number
of caribou counted (including those off-transect) was
2
114
477. In 1971, Buss (1971) resurveyed the area and
found about 4 caribou/100 km of transect area (tran¬
sects 6 km apart and 1097 m in width) and counted
929 caribou. When we examined the data from the
1980s survey and determined the number of caribou
seen in this same area, we found that only 61 caribou
were counted (transects 5 km apart and 1000 m in
width in 1982).
The size of survey areas and the location of survey
boundaries relative to core caribou wintering areas
affected survey results. In 1978, a portion of the
Hudson Bay Lowland near the Manitoba border was
surveyed (Fig. 5: A ) as part of a more comprehensive
survey for moose and caribou in the West Patricia
Planning Area (Hamilton, 1978). Distance between
transects in 1978 was 10 km and transect width was
600 m. Estimated caribou density (14 caribou/100
km ) was more than twice that of any other area
surveyed during the 1960s or 1980s. We believe
this estimate was high, at least in part, because the
1978 survey area captured most of the wintering
area of the Pen Islands caribou herd and included
2
2
2
Rangifer,
Special Issue No. 16, 2005
Fig. 7. Core wintering areas used by caribou in the Hudson Plains Ecozone (HPE) of Ontario from January—March
1959—2003 based on the locations of caribou and their tracks from 3 HPE-wide systematic aerial surveys. A , B,
and C are areas referred to in the text.
the southern portion of the core area for caribou
wintering immediately east of there as well (Fig. 6;
also, see discussion of core wintering areas below).
The density estimate from the 1980s survey did not
center on the wintering range of the Pen Islands herd
and included a much larger area than in 1978 (Fig.
5: areas A + A ) , resulting in a density estimate of
only 4 caribou/100 km , despite the fact that the
number of caribou from the Pen Islands Herd using
the area west of the Severn River may have increased
between 1978 and 1982 when the 1980s survey was
done (Abraham & Thompson, 1998).
The James Bay Lowland in general had lower
density estimates than the Hudson Bay Lowland.
Within the James Bay Lowland, however, there were
some relatively small areas where caribou densities
were estimated at 4—6 caribou/100 km (Fig. 4:
area 7a; Fig. 5: area G). Stewart (1977) estimated 5
caribou/100 km for the portion of the HPE north of
Kesagami Lake (roughly area J in Fig. 5), comment¬
ing that the estimate has "extreme confidence limits"
because 66% of caribou on transects were in just 2
1
2
2
2
2
Rangifer,
Special Issue No. 16, 2005
herds. In 2000, the estimate for this area was also
about 5 caribou/100 km (Gauthier & Hildebrandt,
2000). Caribou in this area may winter south of the
HPE and across the provincial border in Québec, so
density estimates can be highly variable depending
on movement patterns of caribou between years.
Changes in wintering areas confound the interpretation of survey results between years. From 1986 to
2001 there have been 6 systematic winter surveys in
a portion of the James Bay Lowland (roughly area I
in Fig. 5) with density estimates for caribou ranging
from <1 to 6/100 km (Chenier, 2001), with the highest density estimates in 1998 and 2001. In surveys
carried out in January of 1995, 1998, and 2001 in the
southern HPE, a relatively large number of caribou
were located in the central part of the area (Fig. 7:
area B) compared to the 1960s and 1980s surveys.
No caribou were reported in this area in the 1960s
(late Jan-early Feb) and only a few in the 1980s (Jan)
compared to the areas east and west of area B for those
periods. We could not locate the original 1960s survey maps to verify that caribou were absent from area
2
2
115
B during that period. See Figure 3 for the distribution
of caribou locations in the 1960s and 1980s surveys.
A more thorough discussion of Figure 7 is provided
below in the section on core wintering areas.
In summary, based on the available information
on the relative abundance of caribou in the HPE over
a 45-year timespan, we concluded that caribou were
most abundant in the western and central Hudson
Bay Lowland during January—March and possibly
in a small area of the James Bay Lowland near The
Albany Forks. Caribou were largely absent in areas
bordering Hudson Bay and James Bay (Fig. 6). For
most of the James Bay Lowland, caribou occurred in
small, scattered groups during winter, except in The
Albany Forks area and possibly east of The Albany
Forks to about 82°W in some years.
The relative abundance of caribou in different
regions of the HPE support the conclusion of Ahti
& Hepburn (1967) that the Hudson Bay Lowland
is the most important of the 3 ecoregions in the
HPE for caribou wintering habitat. They referred to
these regions as the Coastal Tundra Belt (=Coastal
Hudson Bay Lowland), the Northern Boreal Lichen
Belt (=Hudson Bay Lowland), and the Eastern
Swamp Region (=James Bay Lowland). The authors
found the Coastal Hudson Bay Lowland to be rich
in lichens, especially on the edge of the tundra, and
considered the region to be excellent summer range
for caribou, but too windswept in winter to supply
important winter range. In contrast, they believed
the Hudson Bay Lowland comprised year-round cari¬
bou range because of extensive lichen growth, more
forest cover for shelter, and Carex spp. and Scirpus spp.
in the tamarack swamps and sedge fens. The authors
considered the James Bay Lowland poor winter range,
but speculated that sedges, shrubs, and forbs in
the swamps and fens supplied good summer range.
Although we concur that the James Bay Lowland
likely provides less winter habitat on the whole than
the Hudson Bay Lowland, systematic winter surveys
have shown that caribou nevertheless find winter
range in this region of the HPE. Apparently, only the
tamarack fens bordering the area along the west coast
of James Bay are largely devoid of caribou in winter.
Core caribou wintering areas in the HPE
We defined a core wintering area as an area where
concentrations of caribou sign were located during
the HPE-wide systematic surveys. The core areas had
multiple locations of caribou sign during all 3 survey
periods, with the exception of The Albany Forks area,
which was not part of the 1960s systematic survey
but was known to have a concentration of wintering
caribou in 1962 (Gagnon, 1962), and the area near
Webequie (Fig. 5: area 7a), which was not surveyed
116
in the 1980s but had a large amount of caribou sign
in the 1960s survey (Brokx, 1965: Fig. 36). Based on
this definition and using the location data in Figure
3 and in Brokx (1965: Fig. 36), we delineated 9 core
wintering areas, 5 in the Hudson Bay Lowland and
4 in the James Bay Lowland (Fig. 7), that were used
during the survey periods. The sizes of the core areas
are not proportional to the number of caribou that
were surveyed in those areas. Some areas are rela¬
tively large because the center of use changed from
one survey to another or, in the case of the area near
Webequie, data from the 1980s was not available
to more narrowly define the core area. While the
core areas had the highest concentrations of caribou
during the surveys, caribou were found outside the
core areas as well. In fact, caribou harvested by First
Nations people outside the core areas appeared to
make up a larger proportion of the harvest in the
HPE than caribou harvested within the core areas
(Brokx, 1965; Simkin, 1965; Thompson, 1986). A
key harvesting location for Attawapiskat residents,
for example, is south of the Attawapiskat River (Vic¬
tor Project T E K Working Group, 2004) where no
core wintering areas were identified.
Because we could not locate the original 1960s
survey maps to verify caribou location data, we are
uncertain of the boundaries of the core areas between
The Albany Forks and Moosonee (Fig. 7: area B).
Data from O M N R files indicated that caribou
locations south of 52°N (n = 15) were located near
Moosonee and Kesagami Lake during the 1960s
survey (Fig. 3), at least in the area east of the Albany
Forks for which the data were compiled. It is sur¬
prising that not one location was recorded in area
B (Fig. 7) during the 1960s survey, considering the
spread of caribou locations from The Albany Forks
to Moosonee in later surveys (Fig. 7). Surveys in this
area from 1995, 1998, and 2001 located relatively
large numbers of caribou in area B (Fig. 7) and rela¬
tively few near Moosonee. These more recent surveys
suggest that caribou, if indeed absent from area B
(Fig. 7) in the 1960s and distributed mainly east
and west of area B in the 1980s, have increased in
numbers and/or distribution in recent decades. The
relatively high density estimates for 1998 and 2001
support the argument for an increase in numbers,
but the variation in movements of caribou during
the winter months could alone account for the dif¬
ferences. Unless surveys are carried out over a large
enough area to cover all possible wintering areas for
caribou that use this portion of the HPE, it will not
be possible to differentiate between changes in num¬
bers and changes in winter distribution.
Unfortunately, there is no way to determine wheth¬
er the changes in the amount of caribou sign detected
Rangifer,
Special Issue No. 16, 2005
Fig. 8. Summer locations of caribou groups in the Hudson Plains Ecozone (HPE) of Ontario based on incidental observations and photographic surveys from 1950 to 2003.
during the systematic surveys are due to changes in
caribou distribution, abundance, or survey design.
However, there is reason to believe that there have
been changes in distribution and/or abundance of
caribou in portions of the HPE in recent years. There
was no sign of caribou recorded for the 9000-km
area in the northcentral James Bay Lowland (Fig. 7:
area A) in the 1980s survey (Fig. 3). In contrast,
caribou sign in this area during the 1960s was not
uncommon (Brokx, 1965: Fig. 36) and in the 2000s
survey, we located caribou sign in 7 of 9 survey
hexagons and saw 4 groups of caribou averaging
5.5 caribou per group in 4 different hexagons, even
though transects were spaced much farther apart
in the latter survey and we did not follow tracks to
count caribou numbers. Furthermore, during the
1960s survey caribou sign was uncommon just north
of the Ekwan River, but by the 1980s and 2000s
surveys, caribou were fairly evenly distributed east
of Shamattawa Lake and north of the Ekwan River
(Fig. 3). In 1996 there was an unusual movement of
relatively large numbers of caribou through the com2
Rangifer,
Special Issue No. 16, 2005
munity of Peawanuck in November 1996. The herd
was estimated at about 2000 animals and was much
larger than any known caribou concentration in the
area for more than a decade (Scholten & Chenier,
1996). Our interviews with residents of Peawanuck
in August 2004 indicated that, since about the mid1990s, winter caribou harvesting opportunities have
increased substantially for hunters from Peawanuck.
Residents reported that caribou used to winter in dis¬
crete pockets "until the last 5—10 years," when they
now appear to be "everywhere south of the treeline"
(i.e., south of the Coastal Hudson Bay ecoregion
within the Hudson Bay Lowland).
Summer distribution
Summer locations of caribou from incidental observa¬
tions and photographic surveys are presented in Fig.
8. Very little is known about the summer distribu¬
tion of caribou in the HPE, except for the Coastal
Hudson Bay Lowland (Thompson & Abraham, 1994)
and the area south of James Bay where Brown et al.
(2003) conducted a study of caribou using satellite
117
Fig. 9. Summer locations of caribou along the Hudson Bay coast during 4 periods from 1965 to 2003 based on incidental observations and photographic surveys.
collars. While the low number of caribou locations in
the interior portions of the HPE most likely results
from few observers in that area in summer, the lack
of caribou observations along the coast of James Bay
compared to Hudson Bay reflects actual caribou
distribution in coastal areas in summer. Biologists
working on the Hudson Bay coast in summer trav¬
eled from Moosonee to Hudson Bay along the James
Bay coast and they rarely observed caribou along
James Bay.
We divided the summer observations along the
Hudson Bay coast by decade and caribou group size
to show changes in distribution along the coast over
time (Fig. 9). Simkin (1965) reported that caribou
were seen all along the Coastal Hudson Bay Lowland
in summer, although the largest group he reported
was 41 animals east of the Winisk River (early
1960s). He did note a high concentration of caribou
tracks near the mouth of the Niskibi River to the
west. However, Simkin and others could easily have
missed seeing caribou groups along portions of the
coast during that period because of the relatively
restricted areas of the coast where they spent time
during the summer. In the early 1970s evidence
began to accumulate that caribou were using the
118
coastal areas in larger numbers than in the past. As
many as 2300 animals were photographed at the
mouth of the Black Duck River on 6 July 1979 at the
Ontario—Manitoba border (Abraham & Thompson,
1998). This was the summer following the 1978 win¬
ter survey mentioned previously (Hamilton, 1978)
that produced an unusually high density estimate
(Fig. 5: area A2), and Hamilton (1978) estimated
that approximately 4500 caribou used the winter¬
ing area near the Manitoba border that winter. In
1986, large summer aggregations of the Pen Islands
Herd were photographed just on the Ontario side of
the border, with one group well to the east. Regular
photographic counts of aggregations on the coast
in the late 1980s and early 1990s suggested a rela¬
tively large and increasing herd (e.g., 10 798 animals
photographed in 1994) distributed across the border
of Ontario and Manitoba (Abraham & Thompson,
1998). Most of the caribou photographed were in
large mixed groups, averaging about 1000 animals
and ranging from about 200—2000 animals. This
pattern appears to have changed beginning in the
mid-1990s, with more but smaller groups of caribou
scattered along the coast of Hudson Bay and becom¬
ing more common in areas east of Fort Severn.
Rangifer,
Special Issue No. 16, 2005
The last photographic survey of the Pen Island
Herd occurred in 1997 and incidental observa¬
tions west of Fort Severn declined after 1997, likely
because fewer field studies occurred there by the
late 1990s. However, goose banding has occurred
annually in the area in mid- to late July since
the late 1970s, and in recent years banders have
reported fewer encounters with caribou than previ¬
ously (D. Byers, pers. comm.). In 2002, a dedicated
search for caribou was made from Fort Severn west
into Manitoba; no aggregations and virtually no
caribou were found (D. Sutherland and M . Obbard,
O M N R , pers. comm.). The search was in early
July when in the 1980s and 1990s postcalving
aggregations would have been peaking in size and
occurrence (Thompson & Abraham, 1994). Similar
results were obtained on a vegetation survey in
mid-July 2000 by K . Abraham and during a 2week ground expedition to the Pen Islands in July
2004 during the period of peak aggregations; no
postcalving aggregations and only a few scattered
individuals were observed (D. Sutherland, pers.
comm.). However, it is possible that aggregations,
even large ones, could have been missed west of
the Winisk River. In contrast, from 1998 to 2003,
many groups of caribou were recorded east of the
Winisk River by observers engaged in studies of
geese, polar bears (Ursus maritimus), and breeding
birds, although these aggregations did not appear
to be as large as those of the Pen Island Herd in
the 1980s and early 1990s. This increase of caribou
in the area east of Fort Severn since the early 1990s
was real, not simply an artifact of observer distribu¬
tion. Annual goose banding, mid-July photographic
goose surveys, breeding bird surveys, and polar bear
research all took place during in the 1980s and early
1990s as well, but incidental observations of caribou
in the coastal zone east of the Winisk River during
that period were minimal (Fig. 9). Reasons for the
change in summer distribution are unknown.
Interpreting the information available on summer
distribution of caribou in the HPE is problematic.
Data on caribou numbers and distribution during
summer were not collected systematically, and radiotelemetry was not used to find animals that were
outside the major coastal aggregation areas. Most
summer incidental observations were confined to the
areas of the coast where biologists were working on
projects unrelated to caribou, so even coastal aggre¬
gations were likely missed in some years. Photo¬
graphic surveys were confined to the western portion
of the coast and were discontinued after 1997. Finally,
a system for routinely documenting the locations of
all caribou sighted in the HPE by biologists working
in the area was not put in place until the 1990s. We
Rangifer, Special Issue No.
16, 2005
concluded from our limited information, however,
that 1) relatively large numbers of caribou began
using the western coastal area of the HPE in Ontario
sometime in the 1970s, 2) by the 1980s the coastal
area west of the Severn River in Ontario was used by
relatively large aggregations of caribou, 3) caribou
numbers were low along the coast east of the Winisk
River in the 1980s, 4) summer aggregations, although
smaller than those of the western coastal area in the
1980s, began to appear in the eastern coastal area in
the 1990s, and 5) large summer caribou aggregations
largely disappeared from the western coastal area
sometime between 1997 and 2000.
The dramatic change in summer distribution
along the Hudson Bay coast and the decline in the
size of the coastal aggregations calls into question
the current range, distribution, and size of the Pen
Islands Herd, which is often included in the total
population estimate of caribou in Ontario. Up to
52% of the population estimate for the province
has been attributed to this herd (Cumming, 1998;
Harris, 1999), even though the herd resides partly
in Manitoba. The disappearance of large summer
aggregations along the coast west of Fort Severn
suggests the herd may no longer occupy its past
range in Ontario in numbers comparable to the
1980s. On the other hand, reasons for the increase
in the number of caribou aggregating on the coast
east of the Winisk River in recent years are not
known; perhaps the Pen Islands caribou herd has
shifted its summer range to the east. Lytwyn (2002)
reviewed Hudson Bay Company records to deter¬
mine the seasonal hunting patterns of the "Lowland
Cree" and found evidence that caribou crossed the
Severn River in large numbers ("many thousands")
in the spring and the fall; a favorite crossing place
where caribou were traditionally hunted was about
35 km upstream of Severn House (present-day Fort
Severn) (Lytwyn, 2002: 104). He noted that some
of the Severn River Lowland Cree moved eastward
when hunting the migrating caribou in summer,
and the Albany River Lowland Cree traveled north
to meet the migrating herds (Lytwyn, 2002: 96).
"The main caribou calving grounds were reported
to be east of the Severn River in the vicinity of
Cape Henrietta Maria, but some caribou spent the
summer between York Factory and Severn House"
(Lytwyn, 2002: 97). A n alternative explanation for
the increase in the number of caribou aggregating
along the coast east of Fort Severn in summer is a
change in the numbers and/or distribution of cari¬
bou, not associated with the Pen Islands Herd, that
winter in the Hudson Bay Lowland between the
Severn River and James Bay.
119
Conclusions and recommendations
The results of our synthesis of information on caribou
in the HPE have shown that over the 45-year period
since systematic surveys were initiated, caribou dis¬
tribution patterns in winter have largely remained
the same, although the centers of some core win¬
tering areas may have shifted. Summer use of the
Hudson Bay coast west of Fort Severn by the Pen
Islands caribou has declined while use of the coastal
area east of Fort Severn has increased, although with
smaller aggregations. Changes in population size
for caribou in the H P E may have occurred over this
period as well, but data are insufficient to detect
these changes.
Use of satellite collars placed on caribou in the core
wintering areas and on those that aggregate along
the Hudson Bay coast in summer would greatly
improve our understanding of the distribution and
movements of caribou in the HPE and would help
to determine if caribou using different core winter¬
ing areas in the region belong to distinct groups of
caribou. Once subpopulations of wintering caribou
are identified, future surveys to derive population
estimates could encompass entire wintering areas to
produce more accurate population estimates that are
comparable between years and provide information
on annual changes in winter distribution.
Large changes in caribou distribution and numbers
in the HPE will have direct effects on the people
and ecosystems of the region, yet no comprehensive
programs are in place to monitor changes in caribou
distribution, abundance, or harvest. The challenges
in monitoring caribou in such remote regions of
Ontario are daunting, but identification of important
wintering areas, summer calving areas, and move¬
ment corridors is crucial to conservation of caribou
in the H P E as modern, industrial-scale resource
development and associated infrastructure expand
into this region for the first time.
Acknowledgments
We thank the organizations that funded this project:
Wildlife Conservation Society, the Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources, World Wildlife Fund-Canada, and
Environment Canada. We also thank the survey pilots,
R. Swisher, M . Webb, and P. Valkenburg, and C. Fortin
who participated as an observer in 2003. Many observers
contributed incidental observations of caribou since 1950,
but we particularly thank M . Obbard and D. Sutherland
for their contributions. We appreciate the efforts of G. Lipsett—Moore, who helped design the 2003—2004 aerial sur¬
veys, and J . Zigouris and S. Hagey, who assisted with data
entry. We received logistical support and kind hospitality
120
from many individuals in communities where we stayed
during the surveys. Finally, we thank T. Armstrong and J .
Rettie for their meticulous review of the manuscript and
helpful comments; the manuscript was much improved
because of their efforts.
References
Abraham, K. F. & Keddy, C. J. (in press). The Hudson
Bay lowland: A unique wetland legacy. Chapter 4. — In:
Fraser, L. H . & Keddy, P.A. (eds.). The World's Largest
Wetlands: Their Ecology and Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U K , pp. 118—148.
Abraham, K. F. & Thompson, J. E. 1998. Defining
the Pen Islands caribou herd of southern Hudson Bay.
— Rangifer Special Issue No. 10: 33—40.
Ahti, T. & Hepburn, R. L. 1967. Preliminary studies
on woodland caribou range, especially on lichen stands, in
Ontario. Research Report (Wildlife) No. 74. Ontario
Department of Lands and Forests, Toronto, Ontario.
AMEC. 2004. Victor Diamond Project Comprehensive Study Environmental Assessment. http://www.
debeerscanada.com/files_2/victor_project/victor_eareport-2004.html
Banfield, A. W. F. 1961. A revision of the reindeer and caribou,
genus Rangifer. National Museum of Canada Bulletin No.
177 (Biological Series No. 66). Department of Northern
Affairs and National Resources, Ottawa, Ontario.
Bell, R. 1886. Report on an exploration of portions of the
At-ta-wa-pish-kat and Albany Rivers. — Geological Survey
Canada 2: 1—330.
Berkes, F., George, P. J., Preston, R. J., Hughes, A.,
Turner, J. & Cummins, B. D. 1994. Wildlife harvest¬
ing and sustainable native economy in the Hudson and
James Bay Lowland, Ontario. — Arctic 47: 350—360.
Berkes, F., Hughes, A., George, P. J., Preston, R. J.,
Cummins, B. D. & Turner, J. 1995. The persistence
of aboriginal land use: fish and wildlife harvest areas in
the Hudson and James Bay Lowland, Ontario. — Arctic
48: 81—93.
Brokx, P. A. J. 1965. The Hudson Bay Lowland as caribou
habitat. M.Sc. thesis. University of Guelph, Ontario.
Brown, G. S., Mallory, F. F. & Rettie, W. J. 2003.
Range size and seasonal movement for female woodland
caribou in the boreal forest of northeastern Ontario.
— Rangifer Special Issue No. 14: 227—233.
Buss, M. E. 1971. Aerial survey for woodland caribou in
the Severn—Winisk Rivers area. O M N R unpubl. report.
Moosonee, Ontario.
Chenier, C. 2001. Aerial moose survey of W M U 25 for
2001. O M N R unpubl. report. Moosonee, Ontario.
Cringan, A. T. 1956. Some aspects of the biology of caribou
and a study of the woodland caribou range of the Slate
Islands, Lake Superior, Ontario. M.A. thesis. University of
Toronto, Ontario.
Rangifer,
Special Issue No. 16, 2005
Cumming, H . G. 1998. Status of woodland caribou in
trial climate of the Hudson Bay Lowlands. — Arctic and
Ontario: 1996. - Rangifer Special Issue No. 10: 99-104.
Alpine Research 23: 24—30.
Rowe, J. S. 1972. Forest regions of Canada. Department of
de Vos, A. & Peterson, R. L. 1951. A review of the status
Environment, Canadian Forest Service Publication No.
of woodland caribou in Ontario. —Journal of Mammalogy
32: 329-337.
1300. Ottawa.
Dowling, D. B. 1904. Report on a survey of the Ekwan
Schaefer, J. A. 2003. Long-term range recession and the
River and of the route through Sutton H i l l Lake. - Geopersistence of caribou in the taiga. — Conservation Biology
logical Survey Canada 14: 5-60F.
17: 1435—1439.
Ecological Stratification Working Group. 1996. A
Scholten, S. & Chenier, C. 1996. 1996 Winisk/PeawaNational Ecological Framework for Canada. Agriculture and nuck aerial caribou survey. O M N R unpubl. report.
Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch, Centre for Land and
Moosonee, Ontario.
Biological Resources Research and Environment Canada,
Simkin, D. W. 1959. Caribou inventory in N W corner
State of Environment Directorate, Ottawa.
of Patricia's 1959. O M N R unpubl. report. Moosonee,
Gagnon, A. 1962. Caribou survey 1962. O M N R unpubl.
Ontario.
report. Moosonee, Ontario.
Simkin, D. W. 1960. Aerial survey for caribou in Hud¬
Gauthier, M. & Hildebrandt, L. 2000. 1999-2000
son Bay coastal area 1960. O M N R unpubl. report.
aerial moose surveys—Wildlife Management Unit 26.
Moosonee, Ontario.
O M N R unpubl. report. Cochrane, Ontario.
Simkin, D. W. 1961. 1961 aerial survey for caribou
Goddard, J. 1961. Report of an aerial census of woodin Hudson Bay Lowland. O M N R unpubl. report.
land caribou (Rangifer tarandus) populations in the
Moosonee, Ontario.
Attawapiskat - Wunnummin Region during the winter
Simkin, D. W. 1962a. 1962 aerial survey for caribou for
of 1961. O M N R unpubl. report. Moosonee, Ontario.
Winisk—Cape Henrietta Maria area. O M N R unpubl.
Hamilton, G. D. 1978. Aerial census of woodland caribou report. Moosonee, Ontario.
in the West Patricia Planning Area. Wildlife Technical Simkin, D. W. 1962b. 1962 aerial survey for caribou
Report No. 6. West Patricia Land Use Plan. Thunder
in the Big Trout Lake area. O M N R unpubl. report.
Bay, Ontario.
Moosonee, Ontario.
Harris, A. 1999. Report on the status of woodland caribou inSimkin, D. W. 1964. A n aerial survey for caribou in the
Ontario. Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in
Shagamu, Shamattawa, and Sutton Lakes area 1964.
Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Thun¬
O M N R unpubl. report. Moosonee, Ontario.
der Bay, Ontario.
Simkin, D. W. 1965. A preliminary report of the woodland
Hearne, S. 1795. A journey from Prince of Wales Fort in
caribou study in Ontario. Section Report (Wildlife) No.
Hudson's Bay to the Northern Ocean in the years 1769, 1770, 59. Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, Toronto,
1771, and 1772. Serahan, A. & Cadell, T. London.
Ontario.
Jérémie, N. 1720. Relation du Détroit et de la Baye de Hud- Simkin, D. W. 1967. Aerial survey for caribou between
son. Bernard's Receuil de Voyages au Nord. Amsterdam.
Severn and Winisk Rivers, March 1967. O M N R unpubl.
report. Moosonee, Ontario.
Lytwyn, V. P. 2002. Muskekowuck Athinuwick: Original
People of the Great Swampy Land. University of Manitoba Stewart, R. W. 1977. 1976—77 caribou aerial inventory of
Press, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Wildlife Management Unit 26. O M N R unpubl. report.
Cochrane, Ontario.
McLellan, D. J. 1962. Woodland caribou survey project—
Kapuskasing, winter 1962. O M N R unpubl. report.
Thompson, J. E. 1986. Population and harvest surveys
Moosonee, Ontario.
for the Hudson Bay Lowland caribou. O M N R unpubl.
report. Moosonee, Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2001.
Northern Boreal Initiative: a land-use planning
Thompson, J. E. & Abraham, K. F. 1994. Range, sea¬
approach. Concept Document. http://www.mnr.gov.
sonal distribution and populations dynamics of the Pen
on.ca/MNR/nbi/C-LUP-English_opt.pdf
Islands caribou herd of southern Hudson Bay. O M N R
unpubl. final report. Moosonee, Ontario.
Racey, G. D. & Armstrong, T. 2000. Woodland caribou
range occupancy in northwestern Ontario: past and
Tyrrell, J. B. 1913. Hudson Bay exploring expedition, 1912.
present. - Rangifer Special Issue No. 12: 173-184.
Ontario Bureau of Mines Annual Report 22. Wm.
Briggs, Toronto, Ontario.
Riley, J. L. 1982. Hudson Bay Lowland floristic inventory,
wetlands catalogue and conservation strategy. - Natu¬ Victor Project TEK Working Group. 2004. Victor
raliste Can. (Rev. Éco. Syst.) 109: 543-555.
Project TEK Study, Final Report. Prepared for De
Beers Canada Exploration Inc. and the AttawapisRiley, J. L. 2003. Flora of the Hudson Bay Lowland and its
kat First Nation. http://www.debeerscanada.com/
postglacial origins. National Research Council of Canada
files_2/pdf_documents/victor_ea_2004/04_sub-folder/
Monograph. N R C Research Press, Ottawa, Ontario.
tek_report_edited.pdf
Rouse, W. R. 1991. Impacts of Hudson Bay on the terres-
Rangifer, Special Issue No.
16, 2005
121